The FUD-Packer’s Ball

Posted on April 24, 2024 by thezman

183

Throughout the Cold War years, it was a standard claim from the people called the left in America that the intelligence services manipulated domestic politics. This did not come from the mainstream left, but the fringier left-wing activists. For its part, the right in all its forms simply ignored the claims. Eventually, the mainstream right became the primary defenders of the intelligence agencies. They were viewed as the first line of defense in the Cold War and thus were lionized.

Of course, the claims about the intel agencies were not without some merit. In the late 1960’s a communist student publication called Ramparts reported that the National Student Association, which was a federation of student governments, was funded and controlled by the CIA. Later it was revealed by the Church Committee that many newspapers were cooperating with the CIA. Operation Mockingbird was one of the CIA programs used to manipulate the media.

The Church Committee is an interesting bit of history as it might be the last time Congress did anything useful in terms of oversight. The final report was massive and you can still access it on the Senate website. One reform that resulted from this event was the establishment of the permanent US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which has been thoroughly captured by the CIA. Members of this committee participated in the Russian collusion hoax, for example.

Putting that aside, the headline item at the time was that the intelligence agencies were spying on Americans, experimenting on Americans, and manipulating the media by placing assets at media companies. In the fullness of time, the important revelation was that this practice was thoroughly normalized in the agencies. The intel agencies saw nothing wrong with what they were doing. That means we can assume they continued doing it despite the revelations.

Again, the Russian collusion hoax is a good starting point. If the intel agencies were comfortable in trying to overturn the 2016 presidential election, then it is safe to assume this behavior is normalized inside these agencies. That returns us to the Church Committee and the scale of operations fifty years ago. In the analog days, the intel agencies were comfortable with subverting newspapers, so what sorts of things will they be comfortable doing in the digital age?

For example, would the intel agencies pay social media influencers? If they were paying student groups in the 1960’s how opposed would they be to paying social media characters to push certain themes? It is not as if anyone bothers to look into the background of bigfoot influencers. These characters seem to appear from nowhere, gain a big audience and join the ranks of influencers. Inserting intel agents into this space is a low-cost, high reward activity.

Look at someone like Michael Tracey, who is a bigfoot influencer on Twitter with over a quarter million followers. According to Twitter, about 15% of their users have more than one thousand followers. Only one percent of American users have more than three thousand followers. That means someone with a quarter million followers is in a ridiculously small club of users. This assumes the follower counts are accurate and the followers are not purchased from a bot farm.

Michael Tracey has no job and no obvious source of income. He lives in New York City, one of the most expensive places in America. He regularly travels the world to pester government officials at press gatherings. His Substack mostly gathers dust, in terms of readership, and he never posts monetized content on Twitter. Maybe he has a rabbi that underwrites his activity, which is not unusual, but maybe that rabbi is tied to one of the intel agencies, which would not be unusual either.

Note that Tracey spends most of time doing FUD-packing. FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Right now, he is flaming the Trump world right now with claims that Trump is responsible for the war funding bills. It is a weird claim, but coming from a major account it does seep into the public consciousness. This is new for him, as he usually spends his time attacking progressives. In fact, he built his following on the right by FUD-packing the people on the left.

Now, Michael Tracey is probably on the level, but there is no way of knowing it, which is the point of this example. In a world where people are more likely to get their information from anonymous and unexamined characters on social media, how hard would it be for the intel agencies to manipulate this system? Build up a network of influential FUD-packers and you can control the unhappy portion of both political parties by saturating them with misery.

Here is something else to consider. These days, the intel agencies do not have to actually buy the FUD-packer. They can simply manipulate him though the various donations options most people have these days. When they like the FUD-packing from an influencer, they can send a bunch of small donations. They can also use their bot farms to boost that guy’s FUD-packing. In other words, a FUD-packer could be compromised without even knowing it.

The point of thinking about FUD-packing is that we live in an age where it is much easier for the intel agencies to do what they habitually were doing fifty years ago, so it is wise to assume it is as common now as it was back then. The digital information space is now a wilderness of mirrors manipulated by people who are drawn to the work because they love FUD-packing. As a result, our information space is a FUD-packers ball where nothing should be taken at face value.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.

Everyone Believes It

Posted on April 23, 2024 by thezman

266

The mostly online wars over what has come to be called “woke culture” obscures a reality that lies behind the fads and programs. That reality is an ideology that evolved in the last century and now defines the ruling class of America in a way that the people in the ruling class do not understand. It is just an assumed part of the culture they were selected into and conditioned to accept. They believe what they believe because everyone they know believes it.

That ideology begins with egalitarianism that has its roots in Protestantism and eventually gave birth to the progressive movement. The claim that all men are equal in the eyes of God became simply all men are equal once God was dropped from the thinking of the ruling elites. Since all men are obviously not equal, the blank slate evolved as a solution to this dilemma. The inequality we see is the result of society, so the great and the good have a duty to fix it.

What many now call the civil rights revolution is the most recent and damaging manifestation of this urge to level society. In his pamphlet on the landmark Supreme Court decision, Brown versus Board of Education, professor Jesse Merriam explained how this case revolutionized the law by transforming the Constitution from a rights based political system to a civil rights political system. What is now called antiracism is actually the point of our political order.

This interview with Merriam is interesting for a number of reasons. One is the exchange he had with the interviewer over the case of an Alabama eatery that had separate seating for whites and blacks. The interviewer tries hard to get Merriam to say the restaurant should be allowed to set its own policies, even if these policies violate what is, in reality, the ruling dogma of this age. It is a long game of verbal chess as Merriam deftly avoids the trap set for him by the interviewer.

That exchange is a good example of the prevailing orthodoxy at work. The interviewer, most likely without thinking about it, tries to get the interviewee to say he would tolerate discrimination, which is the chief sin of this age. The interviewee, knowing this, carefully avoids stating this by refocusing the discussion on the legal dynamics behind the court case that arose from this situation. Imagine this going on in elite offices every day and you get a sense for how ideology rules our elites.

The case in question, Katzenbach v. McClung, is another good example. The restaurant did business only in Alabama so it should never have been subjected to the interstate commerce clause and therefore immune from the new civil rights provisions recently enshrined in federal law. The court acknowledged this, but then imagined a scenario in which the restaurant bought goods that at some point originated out of state, so therefore it was now subject to federal regulation.

What the court did was reason that since the primary evil against which the Constitution stands is discrimination, it is logically impossible for any part of the Constitution to stand against overcoming discrimination. Whatever “the words on the paper” say, as Barak Obama once put it, they can never be read to oppose what is now assumed to be the spirit and point of the document. Belief and righteous commitment to that belief are now the litmus test of the ruling class across all domains.

We are about to see the flipside of the civil right revolution in the federal case launched against the Sheetz store chain. The feds are quite open about the fact that they do not think the store is using race to discriminate. In fact, they are not even claiming the policy is leading to fewer black employees than what would happen without the policy against hiring convicts. They simply say it could happen, because of upstream discrimination in the criminal justice system and the economy.

This strikes normal people as madness, and it is madness, the madness that naturally arises from ideology. The ethical model of the world that arises from the belief that all men are equal must inevitably target reality as the ultimate obstacle to achieving the promised goal of the ideology. It is why ideologues always end up in a life and death struggle with the reality of the human condition. It is also why they usually kill a lot of people before reality finally defeats them.

It will not be long before the zombies that dominate the late-night comedy circuit begin to make jokes about Sheetz not hiring blacks. Jon Stewart is now practicing his funny faces in the mirror to go along with his new Sheetz material. This provides the social proof needed so that everyone in the managerial class will adopt this assertion as a part of their shared reality. No one will think of the lunacy at the heart of it because there is no benefit to questioning the belief.

This ties back to that exchange between Klingenstein and Merriam over the choice involving the Alabama restaurant. There was nothing but danger for Merriam in defending the ancient right of free association. For Klingenstein, there was nothing but accolades awaiting him for defending antiracism. The cult of antiracism that arose from egalitarianism selects for those who are loyal to the cause and weeds out those who question the logic of the cause or its underlying assumptions.

This is why we have a ruling class that seems to be at war with not just the culture and traditions of America but at war with reality itself. The American ruling elite has evolved to serve the needs of the civil rights revolution and what Professor Merriam calls the antiracist constitution. Happening as it has over generations, the people in it are unable to see that they are operating within an ideological framework. They believe what they believe because everyone they know believes it.

The End Is Nigh

Posted on April 16, 2024 by thezman

Since it became clear during the 2016 election cycle that Conservative Inc no longer had any influence on the Dirt People, there has been an effort to reconstitute a New Right that will fill the void left by the now Old Right. This being the mass media age, one part of that effort is to promote certain online personalities as spokesmen for a particular point of view. You see an example in this debate organized by a site called IM1776, which is “a magazine of cultural and sociopolitical analysis.”

It should be noted that IM1776 is the product of a not-for-profit called The Art & Literature Foundation, which appears to be the brainchild of an Italian guy named Mark Granza, who had his political awakening in 2016. You can read a lengthy interview of him in this English language Hungarian site. For the sake of clarity, IM1776 is financially supported by Claremont. It is always wise to know how someone pays his bills before assessing his political opinions.

That aside, what you see in this back and forth is the same specter that has haunted Western political thought since 1789. That is the specter of ideology. Both men are in their own way ideologues. They have an image of how society ought to be organized based on how they think men ought to act toward one another. While their ideal society is something of an end point, it is, in fact, the starting point for them. In other words, they begin with the end in mind.

For Curtis Yarvin, the end is a form of monarchy not because he thinks it is the best in the abstract sense of the best society, but that only through an absolute ruler can the things he likes about Western society be defended from the dark forces that seek to unsettle our cultural norms. Rufo, on the other hand, is a natural rights republican, who thinks the ideal society is based in individual rights. It is only through reaffirming our natural rights that we can restore the republic.

While there is a lot of overlap between what both see as the ideal society, they clearly have different visions for how to achieve it. Yarvin thinks we have to wait for the great man to emerge and topple the present order. Alternatively, the present orders collapses, and a great man emerges. Rufo thinks the way forward is to nibble away at the civil rights order by attacking it fruits. His current project is to hold the diversity hires in the academy to the alleged standards of the academy.

For most people this sounds logical. You start every project with the end in mind and you see that is the Yarvin – Rufo debate. In fact, that is the primary appeal of both Chris Rufo and Curtis Yarvin. They hold up this image of a possible future and if you like what you see, you support their program. This has been how political debate has been framed in the West since the French Revolution. You are presented with two images of the future and asked to pick one of them.

The problem with this, the reason that ideology must always fail, is that it never considers if the end is possible or even plausible. This is not because the ideologue is incapable of doubting the ideology. It is because ideology must always rest on the assumption that all societies are intentional societies. What we see is the product of human labor, therefore the goodness or badness of society reflects the goodness or badness of the people who made it.

Good people not only follow a certain code, but they must constitute the telos of the society of which they are a part. No ideology ever concludes that the ideologue must disengage with society, other than if it helps him engage with fellow ideologues in plotting to overthrow the present order. Ideology assumes you must be engage in the project of moving society toward the desired end. Otherwise, you are assumed to be working against those who are doing so.

To think that society is anything other than the fruit of human labor would be a nullification of ideology. If society is the product or random chance, for example, then what we ought to do to improve society is meaningless. It makes no difference what we think we ought to do, as the result is just a random walk. If what we see is the best we can muster from the material at hand, then the ideal, what we ought to seek, is actually a hindrance to creating a harmonious society.

As an aside, this explains the rejection of biological reality. The popularity of the trans business is one way of denying biological reality and the limits it must place on what is possible for human society. The New Right rejects biology as it undermines their claims about the nature of man. As soon as you accept biological reality, most arguments about how we ought to live become superstition. You are left with the question of what can we do with the material at hand.

Another thing you see with all of the participants in the New Right project is that none of them are looking forward in the sense that some novel vision of the future is leading them to question their own assumptions of the past. Their prize is something like what the French philosopher Jacques Derrida called hauntology. The New Right is sentimental for a promised future that never materialized. It is why they focus so much on the “wrong turns” of the past.

What all this leads to is the fact that we are seeing the end of ideology. It is easy to forget, but ideology is a relatively novel thing in the history of man. The Franks did not have a governing ideology. The Greeks were not ideologues. Rameses did not govern with a vision of the future in mind. For all of human history, how we ought to organize society was a practical question, not a moral one. Ideology is an invention of Western man, the weeds that grew out of the rubble of the Thirty Years War.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

There Is Worse Than Hitler

Posted on April 11, 2024 by thezman

If you have paid any attention to British politics, you will note that what passes for the political right in Britain is more feckless and ridiculous than what passes for the political right in the United States. It is one of those things that should be impossible, but once you look at the recent string of Prime Ministers, you have to accept it is reality, which means things will inevitably get worse in America. No matter how much you hate the Republicans, you will have reason to hate them more.

The Tories are facing what many predict could be a party ending election this year, as current polling has them winning just a handful of seats. The Tories currently have a 35% approval number, an all-time low. As a result, there is a movement afoot to wipe out the party entirely. The “zero seats” campaign started as a joke but as is often the case, this joke could turn out to be reality. Italy’s Five Star movement started as a gag and eventually overturned the political establishment.

Neema Parvini, also known as Academic Agent, has a post up explaining why the end of the Tory party would be a good result. His argument should be familiar, as it is the standard analysis you see in dissident circles. The system of competing parties that we call liberal democracy is just theater. Both parties are beholden to the same interests and most important, they agree on all of the big issues. In the case of Britain, Labour and the Tories are dance partners, not opponents.

Since voting for one team or the other ends up with the same result, there is no voting your way out of this problem. Sherlock Holmes famously said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” This is where the Brits and the Americans are regarding their parties. Getting positive results at the ballot box is impossible as things stand. That leaves the list of alternatives that may seem improbable, but they are at least possible.

One of those options is to crater the false opposition. If the supporters of the false opposition walk away, that party will collapse. This then leaves the regime exposed, as it cannot use the controlled opposition as a fig leaf. Their choice then is to nakedly rule as tyrants, thus exposing the system as a fraud or allowing a new opposition to form up among the masses. They would pick the former, maybe creating a new fake opposition, but at least we would have clarity.

The opposition to this argument is that things would be worse if the current theater of democracy is destroyed. Instead of slowly easing over the edge into the abyss, we would speed into the abyss. This is the argument you see from Paul Gottfried in response to Parvini’s post. Working to make things worse, in order to provoke some sort of reaction, could very well end up with things getting worse, without provoking a reaction or getting an unanticipated reaction.

Gottfied uses the example of the German communists working with the Nazis to bring down the liberal Weimar government, because it is impossible to discuss anything without mentioning you know who. Fukuyama’s end of history idea was nonsense, but you could argue that for the collective West, history ended in 1933 when the Nazis seized control of the German state. Since then, every event has been recast as a replay or reworking of those events.

Putting that aside, the argument from Gottfried is familiar. No matter how terrible the right-wing party, it would be worse if they did not exist. Therefore, the only acceptable solution is to try and fix that party. That means voting for the most right-wing option in every primary unless he is a meanie, of course. Then you hope to get enough of these people in office to take control of the party, before they get comfortable with the riches heaped on them by the establishment.

This brings us back to Sherlock Holmes. History makes clear that it is impossible to infiltrate and take over an organization and make it conservative. There are no examples of this ever happening because it is impossible. Integral to the radical mind is “what we have we keep” which means they make a priority of preventing reactionary forces infiltrating their organizations. It is why they create controlled opposition in order to police the right facing walls of the regime.

This is why Parvini gets the better of this debate. He does the rational thing and eliminates the impossible. In Britain, as in America, there is no voting your way out of the problems of liberal democracy and there is no way to co-opt any party of the liberal democratic regime. Once these impossible options are eliminated, the only goal remaining is to topple the regime entirely. Throwing sand in the gears becomes the only moral choice when facing an implacably immoral system.

That leaves us with the abracadabra phrase “worse is worse” that Gottfried thinks is a kill shot in this debate. Since his preferred course has been the default course and the result has been things getting worse, what he is doing is offering a false dichotomy between the worsening reality of his approach and the terrifying but theoretical outcome he tries to conjure with references to Hitler. While Hitler is one possible future, it is not the only possible future or even a probable one.

Western people are like a hockey team down late in the third period. You can pull your goalie and put an extra skater on the ice, or you can play it straight. Maybe the other team commits a penalty or has a mental lapse. If you pull the goalie, things could get worse, but a loss is a loss, no matter the score. If you play it safe, you will probably lose, but again, a loss is a loss. The reason teams always pull the goalie is the possible trade-offs favor that option.

In the context of our politics, abandoning the establishment right is the same as pulling the goalie in that it opens the door to more good outcomes. It could so terrify the economic elite that they impose reform on the system. It could send the system into crisis and open the door for a real opposition. It could end up with Hitler, but is the death of the West by Hitler really any worse than its death by bad management? After all, death is death, no matter the cause.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

A Very American Scam

Posted on April 10, 2024 by thezman

For fifty years abortion was a part of the national political debate due to the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. Those who opposed abortion sought to overturn this court decision, thus returning the issue to the people. The pro-life side assumed they could win the argument and get laws passed to end most abortions. The pro-abortion people obviously fought to prevent this, even though they always claimed the vast majority of the people saw abortion as a holy sacrament.

Abortion was always a good money maker for Conservative Inc. because on the one hand, they only had to pay lip service to the moral issue. It was not as if they could pass legislation or change a regulation to meet the demands of their voters. The courts would just strike down those changes. On the other hand, the only path to victory was getting a majority of pro-life people in office, especially the White house, so the courts could be stocked with pro-life judges. That meant voting Republican.

The way the two party grift has worked since the middle of the last century was that the Democrats conjure novel ideas and find creative ways to normalize them with the progressive segment of the population. Once these ideas gain circulation, the Republicans pretend to oppose these new ideas. Both sides squabble over it, thus narrowing the options to their preferred positions. Then they aggressively fundraise off it as the novel ideas are slowly implemented.

The genius of this arrangement is the elites get what they want, while both parties protect themselves from outside threats by sucking all the oxygen out of the room in their endless media debates. With the oxygen comes the money, which keeps both camps in the lifestyle they think they deserve. Just as important, none of that money goes to anyone who has a third opinion. The political rackets rest on every issue being reduce to a binary choice.

Here is where you can see why the ruling class hates Trump. When he ran for office, he went to the pro-life crowd with a rational offer, rather than the old offer they have always got from conservatives. He told them he needed their vote and even though he was not one of them, he would deliver for them because he needed their vote. Social conservatives, outside of the professional ones, saw this as a rational offer and maybe better than what they have gotten for the last fifty years.

In office, Trump did what he saw as the rational thing and set about appointing pro-life judges up and down the system. From his point of view, this made perfect sense as he would need the support of these people in the next election. If he could show he delivered, then they would come out in droves. His good fortune was that things broke in such a way that the court finally overturned Roe. Both parties hate him because of things like this that disrupt the political rackets.

Putting that aside, the overturn of Roe was a disaster for Pro-Life Inc and the elite of the social conservativism rackets. They no longer had this issue to use in their fundraisers, other than to wage battles at the state level. Since the leaders of these rackets live in swanky homes around the imperial capital, heading out to the wilderness to help the Dirt People wage political fights is horrifying. This idea is equivalent to Pol Pot sending the intellectuals out to the rice fields.

Since the court sent the issue back to the states, the people running for national office no longer have a reason to primp and preen about abortion. If the national candidates stop talking about abortion, the associated money rackets no longer have a reason to raise money to help “their candidates.” That means the money givers no longer have a reason to give money to these guys. Suddenly, thanks to Trump, a billion-dollar industry is threatened with extinction. What to do?

This is why we now have the mass media claiming abortion is the most important issue on the minds of voters. If a Democrat wins a race for dog catcher in East Podunk Missouri, the Washington Post has a pic of young females standing in line to vote, with the claim they are there because of abortion. The political experts, who are always wrong about everything, rush in to explain how this is a threat to Trump as women too busy in their cubicles to have sex are furious about abortion.

It is all nonsense, but despite the fact the media is nothing but a firehose of lies, people still fall for these tricks, especially people who call themselves conservative. Integral to being a conservative is accepting without question the opinions of your enemies while endlessly tone policing your supporters. If the New York Times announces that the cool kids are now wearing flowerpots on their heads, conservatives will swear it is true and produce the conservative case for flowerpots.

This is where Conservative Inc. has swung into action on abortion. Their new scheme to re-nationalize the issue is to champion a national ban on abortion. You see, their big idea now that the courts sent the issue back to the states, something conservatives argued for since Roe, is to take it back from the states and pass a bill that bans all abortion at the federal level. Of course, they cannot do this without your support so make your check out to Conservative Inc.

The only way such a scheme could ever happen is if the Republicans had a huge majority in the House, a super-majority in the Senate and had a pro-life president in the White House. Thanks to Republican support for open borders and election rigging, this is now impossible. Even if it did happen, the Bush years tell us that they would fink on their voters anyway. Remember fake evangelical George Bush nominating pro-abortion Harriet Miers to the court?

Abortion is a good example of why moral issues cannot be decided through any sort of democratic process. Even if the process is legitimate and the participants come to the issue in good faith, you will not get universal agreement. If such an agreement were possible, it would have happened organically and then the only politics around the issue would be about the best policy to support the moral consensus. Otherwise, there is no debating someone out of their sense of right and wrong.

This is why the scam that is the American political system loves moral issues like abortion, because they can never be solved politically. This means they can frame it as two sides with neither side ever having a chance to fully win. Roe was manna from heaven for Conservative Inc., but now the overturning of Roe is manna from Gaia for the aging spinsters running the feminism rackets. They can finally stop talking about men in dresses waving their genitals at children.

If one is looking for a white pill in these dark times it is that the abortion issue has finally returned to its natural place. Like all moral issues, it is one that must be decided by the collective agreement of likeminded people. This means it is a local issue. States and localities can then treat abortion the same way they manage other thorny moral issues like the location of gentlemen’s clubs. In the end, sanity prevailed, and abortion has become something for communities to resolve on their own.

Liar Land

Posted on April 8, 2024 by thezman

Note #1: Behind the green door is a post about Bonnie and Clyde, a post about narrative in the managerial class and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

Note #2: Here is a roundup of the shows I was on last week, for those who love the sound my voice. Here is my appearance on the Killstream I was on with a show with a young YouTuber and another young YouTuber named J Burden.

If you were to go back in time, just a couple of generations, and snatch up some politically active people and bring them forward to this age, they would not only be disappointed that things did not turn out as they predicted, but they would be horrified by what has happened with the public square. They would wonder why there even is a public square when it is now so polluted with deception. How can you have a public debate when so many start with a lie?

This is one of those things that is hard to appreciate about this age as it has crept up on us like the fog and become the new normal. No one tunes into public affairs shows expecting a good faith effort to present the issues and the arguments in a fair and honest way or an effort to inform the viewer. It is not even an attempt to persuade in most cases, but something like a revival for a certain audience. The performers say the expected things and the viewers cheer.

It is not just in the narrow area of performative politics. Deception is now the coin of the realm, even where the truth would serve the parties better. For example, the ongoing feud between Candace Owens and The Daily Wire. None of this would have happened if the Daily Wire had been honest and said they dumped Owens because she is critical of Israel and the platform is pro-Israel. No one would have been surprised and it would have been a one-day affair, but instead they chose to lie.

This is not a peculiarity of the Daily Wire. Lying is now the new normal and truth telling is a good way to get hurled into the void. Whole subjects have been consigned to the shadows because you cannot speak candidly about them, and the lies are so absurd that even the performers cannot say them with a straight face. Crime is the most obvious example of a topic that no longer gets discussed by “serious analysts” because you are not allowed to speak honestly about it.

Crime is a great example of endemic lying. We can no longer trust the FBI crime data because everyone involved in reporting it now lies about it. It used to be that the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting was the gold standard for data, but now it is like everything else in that it is the product of perfidy. The police departments lie about their stats to please the politicians, who lie about the stats to hide the truth from the people they claim to represent. It is liars all the way down.

Every day, the White House sends out that goofy looking black women to address the media on the issues of the day. Everyone in the room knows she is a moron, and everyone knows she is just repeating obvious lies written down in her book that is provided to her by the White House. Everyone in the room then pretends that this is a sincere presentation of events. They refuse to ask obvious questions or address the obvious lies, but instead continue like it is normal.

That is the thing. It is normal. Karine Jean-Pierre is the most absurd and ridiculous example so far, but well within the trend. No reasonable person can accept anything from official sources at face value. The only way to read the news is to first start with the assumption that the truth is from the set of things not mentioned in the news. If you see your picture in the news with your name in the caption, you best check your birth certificate as it is a good chance you are not who you think.

What you see when you lay up a trivial internet drama alongside official pronouncements from the state is that lying is the new normal. Whether it is a small issue or a vitally important issue, the first instinct of everyone involved is to lie and often lie fantastically. It is as if there is a secret competition for who can generate the most outlandish lie each day. Here is a great example of a lie so outlandish that it is hard to imagine anyone doing it without being struck by lightning.

The question is whether this is the result of a corrupt and rotten ruling class or is it the inevitable result of democratic society. In favor of the latter is the observation by the Persians that the ancient Greeks habitualized lying to one another. The agora, the place where Greeks bought and sold things, debated issues of the day, and conducted public affairs was a riot of deception. Winning the argument and winning the sale were the product or clever deception and storytelling.

In the former case, it is clear that the ruling class started to change for the worse after the end of the Cold War. The Clinton’s brought a style of lying to Washington that sent our politics into the abyss of perpetual deception. The financialization of the economy shifted the focus away from building a better mousetrap to creating new and increasingly complex financing of the mouse trap business. These schemes were clever but devoid of any truth value.

As is often the case, it is a combination of these things and some others, but the result is what matters. We now live in a carnival of lies. It is tempting to think that this cannot last, but much of the world lives this way. The reason conspiracy theories are so popular around most of the world is they make more sense than official truth. They also let people think that at the heart of the whirlwind of official lies is a truth that is both rational and reasonable. It lets them sleep at night.

Can Western societies function this way? It is hard to know. A low-IQ, low-trust population can be manipulated by clever midwits, but a high-IQ, naturally trusting society may grow violently irritated by a perfidious midwit ruling class. The general unhappiness we see may be the result of living in a world where stupid people, who think they are clever, tell us obvious lies. One can tolerate someone like Karine Jean-Pierre for so long before something must be done.

Cuban Versus Rufo

Posted on April 4, 2024 by thezman

An interesting exchange took place this week on Twitter between Mark Cuban, former owner of the Dallas Mavericks, and Christopher Rufo. The topic of their exchange was diversity, with Cuban claiming that diversity was our greatest strength and Rufo claiming that the diversity movement is un-American. Neither man put it exactly that way, but that is the simple summary. Cuban thinks diversity makes things better, while Rufo thinks the push to impose diversity makes everything worse.

The exchange was amusing for the simple reason that Cuban clearly does not understand the issue, beyond knowing the slogans which he spasmodically repeats when the topic is raised. At one point he seems to be saying that the three branches of government are the President, Congress, and the bureaucracy. Everyone had a good laugh at his expense, as it became clear in the thread that Mark Cuban is not the brightest bulb in the bunch, despite being a billionaire.

To some degree that is the point of these mini dramas. The hoi polloi gets to feel good seeing one of their champions best who they think is the enemy. Mark Cuban puts a lot of effort into insulting normal people, so normal people love it when he has his pants pulled down on Twitter or anywhere else. Rufo clearly understands the mechanics of the Diversity Industrial Complex, so he easily swats down the trite claims made by Cuban throughout the thread.

More important, these exchanges frame the debate in such a way that alternative points of view are systematically excluded. Strip away the drama and what we have here are two similar views on race. One side says that racial inequality is the result of racial exclusion by whites and therefore must be remedied by forcing whites to include nonwhites in their activities. The other side says it is immoral to notice race at all, so forcing people to be race-conscious in this way is immoral.

Despite appearing to be opposites, both sides are making the same moral claims with regards to race. Rufo thinks using race to make decisions is immoral, while Cuban thinks whites use race to make decisions, which is bad. In other words, both men agree that making general observations about race is immoral. The difference is that Cuban thinks whites do it all the time, while denying it, and Rufo thinks the diversity crowd is guilty of that which they accuse white people.

Both men are not disagreeing about ends, but about means. This is the model of politics that has prevailed in America since Gettysburg. Both sides agree on the ends but disagree on how best and how quickly to get there. As we see with the race issue, it is not always clear that they both agree on the ends, but once you strip away the rhetoric it is clear that at the minimum, they agree with one another as to the morality of each other’s goals with regards to race.

This is an important bit of conditioning that arises from the selection pressure within the American political dynamic. People approved to be on the stage are conditioned to first evaluate the goals of people seeking to get on stage. If their goals fall within the moral framework of the stage owners, they can debate them. Mark Cuban read portions of Rufo’s book, probably because people he knows read it. He knows Rufo is not advocating for things that are proscribed.

Of course, we know Rufo has put an enormous amount of effort into making it clear that he is not like those bad people who think race is a real thing. This is where you see the selection pressure. This is why he focuses on the goal of organizational success, rather than the details of race. He argues that diversity programs make colleges and corporations worse, by preventing them from hiring the best. You see, in a color-blind society we get a true meritocracy!

Interestingly, if both sides of this debate want to see organizations like Harvard maximize their potential, then they would have to support what is a subtle truth about how the sports world evaluates talent. If you are a white guy who plays cornerback in football, the evaluation of you will be much stricter than if you are black. Tall white guys find it much tougher to standout in basketball. Asian guys are assumed to be poor athletes, so they tend to be ignored.

What happens in sports is what the legendary quantitative blogger La Griffe du Lion described as the theory of differential cutoff. The extremely short version of that post is that those from groups that objectively underperform should be held to a higher standard than those from groups that objectively overperform. In other words, hiring a Jewish guy as your lawyer, even though he went to a state school, is a better bet than hiring the black guy from an elite law school.

Note that this reality lurks beneath the diversity arguments. Mark Cuban assumes people make these judgements about race, thus making it more difficult for qualified nonwhites to gain access to positions for which they are qualified. Put another way, an ancient truth is what haunts the diversity industry. They may not have the smarts to understand it, but they feel it. Note also that it haunts the arguments of people like Rufo, who also seek to banish this ancient truth.

The most important takeaway in all this is that both sides agree that you do not have the right of free association. Cuban thinks you should be required to hire a black guy to meet the demands of diversity, while Rufo thinks you should be required to hire the black guy as long as he meets the objective criteria for the job. Your subjective qualifications and individual preferences are not important. Both men wish to dictate your choice based on their version of reason.

Ultimately, that is the point of framing the debate this way. Nowhere in their exchange is a consideration of preference or free association. They are arguing about which version of reason should be imposed on you, when in reality they are debating whose clerics will decide your punishment for having unacceptable preferences. It is a good reminder that politics is never about facts and the reasonable conclusions from those facts, but about who will impose their morality on whom.

The Internet Of Reality

Posted on April 3, 2024 by thezman

Note: As everyone probably knows, VDare has been under assault by the regime for years and may finally be forced to close down. They have been de-banked so the only way to send them money at the moment is GiveSendGo. If you can spare a few bucks, they could sure use it.

In the early days of the internet, the public places were mostly populated by people who assumed wide open was the natural order. As opposed to the real world with its silos and private spaces, the internet would be wide open. Everyone could go into this new public square and say and hear what they liked. That is why the first public forums were wide open and comprehensive. The idea was that you had one big forum, and everyone could pile in and have their say.

It did not take long for that to fail. The early forums quickly splintered as factions that would develop and soon the forums were a riot of antagonistic posting. This was long before the smart people made it easy for the progressive kooks to get online, but even in a world of smart, tech savvy people, factionalism was an issue. Bulletin boards then UseNet and then message boards followed this pattern. They started centralized and open and soon balkanized into private platforms.

Once the internet was made accessible to the midwit progressive, this pattern became more toxic and nastier. Instead of college football forums unable to maintain civility amongst rival fans, it was the tone police and moral scolds creating dissention and demanding their rivals be censored. They worked to gain control of the platforms and then set about driving off their bogeymen. This led to alternative forums for the people who had been purged from the main platforms.

Another aspect of this new version of the old pattern is that the progressive kooks are unable to start their own forums, so they must infiltrate and co-opt existing platforms, which is why we have a censorious atmosphere online. It was not enough for the kooks to gain control of Twitter, for example, they also had to attack any alternative sites that sprang up in response. In other words, the kooks were threatening the normal balkanization dynamic that had existed since the start.

The point of all this is the last half century of the internet demonstrates the reality of large societies, whether they are digital or analog. Once a society gets to a certain size factionalism is inevitable. The message board experience is the best example, as these platforms created lots of tools to allow people to exist on the same platform but ignore the people from factions they did not like. It never worked. The only solution was peaceful separation in the form of separate private platforms.

This makes perfect sense when you learn about the Dunbar number. This is the number of stable relationships people are cognitively able to maintain at once. The generally agreed upon number is one-hundred-and-fifty. For many people, the number is much lower, so this means in any large group, the typical person will have a sense of belonging with a minority of the people. Consequently, they will be alienated from the rest and there is a short trip from alienation to hostility.

This explains the general sense of unhappiness in modern America. The mass media age has not brought people together as our politicians endless blather on about all the time, but rather increased the sense of alienation. The normal person is now bombarded with the presence of alien, perhaps hostile strangers. Every online experience comes with someone trying to scold you, lecture you, harass you or they are simply outside what you consider to be normal and acceptable.

Digital life is making analog life less tolerable. Of course, this is compounded by the fact that it is now impossible to avoid the scold. In the analog world you can easily spot the scold and avoid her. They have a look about them that is easy to recognize. If you knew nothing about Kate Starbird you would take one look at her and know she is someone who should be avoided. Online, there is no way to spot these spiteful mutants until they begin to immiserate you.

Here is where we see the horrors of the virtual world jumping into the analog world, as these people now do to our institutions what they did to the internet. For example, spiteful mutants have taken over the court system in New York. Just as we saw with social media, they are using their power to harass normal people. They have litigated VDare into closure simply because they can. This is not much different from what the scolds did to social media platforms with moderation.

New York is like Twitter before Musk. They have law-fared the NRA into bankruptcy, charged Trump with various invented crimes, levied a fine on Trump for denying he committed a crime that has never been demonstrated, litigated VDare out of existence despite never alleging any wrongdoing and sent a growing number of innocent white men to prison for the crime of being white men. Douglas Mackey is the most famous, but there are others like Maxwell Hare and John Kinsman.

It is clear that kooks in other states are looking to follow the lead of New York, much like we saw with the internet. One site would be subverted by kooks and before long the other sites followed their actions. The peak of this mania was when every internet platform banned Alex Jones on the same day. Even obscure sites like Roku banned him in the rush to anathematize the man. The dream was to bring back internal banishment through de-platforming.

There is another important lesson here, a scary one too. The internet has proven too big to control in this way. The scolds got the upper hand for a while, but the cost of endless policing exceeded the carrying capacity. People forget, but the reason Musk was able to buy Twitter is they were in serious financial trouble. He fired over two-thirds of the staff, the scolds, and harpies, because these people did nothing but immiserate the people who kept the site running.

This will apply even more to a continent sized country. New York can make itself hostile to normal people, but normal people can leave. After what New York has done to VDare, every reformer now knows they have to shop for safe jurisdictions to avoid this sort of problem. The same will be true for industries that know they are threatened by the kook squads. The gun makers are fleeing the Northeast because they know better than anyone that there is no reasoning with fanatics.

The point here is that we will see in the analog world what we have seen in the digital world for the last decades. A great disaggregation is unfolding in which normal people seek refuge from the areas now controlled by the fanatics. Further, the social media experience has shown that you cannot last long when you are overrun by fanatics, even when you are systematically robbing them. Even if peaceful separation is not possible, people will seek it anyway.

In the end, this is the reason to be optimistic. A society in which people like Fani Willis and Letitia James are doing anything more than pulling a cart is a society that will eventually destroy itself. For any human organization to survive it must be run for the interest of normal by the sober minded and talented. This is true for a social media platform, and it is true for a country. Nature cannot long tolerate the unfit and human nature will be compelled to do the same eventually.

After Left And Right

Posted on April 1, 2024 by thezman

Note #1: Behind the green door is a post about Gen-Z being raised on the internet and a post about failing up in managerialism. The Sunday podcast was cancelled due to Easter and nothing happening. Subscribe here or here.

Note #2: For those he need to hear my voice as much as possible, there is my appearance on the Killstream last week. I also recorded a show with a young YouTuber who asked some interesting questions.

Note #3: Some may have noticed that I did some experimenting with the comment system over the weekend. It was not without its bugs, so we are back to the basic setup for now. From time to time you may see things like this as I experiment with ideas for the new site that is in the works.

Over the last decade, “conservatism” in America has declined reputationally largely due to the failures and embarrassments of professional conservatism. Depending upon your disposition, the Bush years either sent the conservative movement over a cliff or exposed it for being nothing more than a financial hustle. There are other views of the failure of professional conservatism and all of them are right in their own way, but there is no denying that the Buckley project has failed.

As a result, the last decade has seen various efforts to create a “new right” to replace the Buckley project. Remnants of the alt-right went so far as to call themselves the “new right” for a while, but they had nothing to offer but new slogans. The Claremont collective has fumbled about trying to create a new conservatism, piggybacking on the populism of Donald Trump. Yoram Hazony has tried to preach a new form of nationalism to take the place of conservatism.

So far none of these efforts has made much progress, outside of creating some interesting debates at times. Most recently Claremont published a long essay on its main site attacking the contradictions within Hazony’s nationalism. On their American Mind site they posted a response from David Goldman, formerly known as Spengler in the Asia Times, coming to the partial defense of nationalism. Less rigorous minds have also waded into the topic with echolalic babbling.

One problem that all attempts to fashion a new right face is something Kesler touched on in his essay about Hazony’s nationalism. America is and always has been a multicultural country. Even putting aside the race issue, the thirteen colonies that came together to form the United States were composed of people with unique cultures and histories, which were often at odds with the other states. These differences pre-dated the colonies themselves, coming over from the Old World.

This presents an obvious problem for nationalism as by definition it assumes a common people with common ancestors. Nationalism is exclusive to a particular people, which cannot work when the people are a mixed bag of various people from different parts of the world with different histories. The story of the Tidewater is different from the story of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Framers understood this which is why they settled on a federal system of government.

As Samuel Goldman explained in his excellent little book, After Nationalism, what has held America together since the beginning is a combination of the covenant, the crucible and the creed. The covenant being a mission to build the city on the hill, the crucible being the shared struggle that binds our various people together and the creed is the statement of shared principles. To one degree or another, these concepts still turn up in our political rhetoric.

Early in his book, Goldman quotes the historian Wilfred McClay, who wrote, “Ties of blood, religion, and soil are not sufficient to hold us together as Americans, and they never have been. We are forever in the business of making a workable unity out of our unruly plurality.” This is the problem with nationalism as a defining force in America, but it also presents a problem for anything calling itself conservatism. Which is why the covenant, the crucible and the creed have shaped conservatism.

Like nationalism, conservatism is strongly tied to the past. You cannot have nationalism without a shared history or at least an overlapping history. Different parts of Germany may have unique pasts, but they share enough of a common past to feel a part of the greater concept of German. Similarly, conservatism seeks to preserve social order by maintaining historical continuity. Conservatives do not oppose change, but instead seek to contain new ideas within the framework of the past.

Central to conservatism is the notion that some things are too important to be put up to the scrutiny of reason. Questioning a tradition, for example, should be resisted even if the logic of tradition is no longer obvious. Conservatives assume that the shared habits of a people exist for a reason. Altering or abandoning the old ways risks unknown and unwelcome consequences, so change must be gradual and cautious. Traditions are the result of trial and error over many generations.

The specter that haunts conservatism, however, is who decides that certain things are not to be questioned? Traditions and customs do not fall out of the sky onto people, but are the product of people, a specific people. The reason they are traditions is they have been handed down to you by your ancestors. They are part of your cultural inheritance that comes from those with whom you share blood. Again, this is something the Framers understood as they debated the new Constitution.

What this means is American conservatism must limit itself to defending the political order as defined by the Constitution. Since that order allows for unlimited changes to the document itself, not to mention unlimited interpretation of the plain text, conservatism is committed to defending a moving target. It is why American conservatism has always been, as Robert Lewis Dabney observed a century ago, “the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.”

There is another problem for conservatism in America. The thing they wish to defend, even if they dismiss the centuries of innovation since its creation, is itself the product of the radical idea of the intentional society. The Framers started from the assumption that they could create the society they wanted because society is, as John Locke understood, the result of human labor and intention. Maker’s knowledge lets man create a society as he would make anything else.

If it is perfectly moral and possible to create a nation out of the wilderness, then it is perfectly moral and possible to recreate that nation, even create a new nation from the old, to meet the demands of the present. In other words, American conservatism must defend that which it claims to oppose, because what it defends is the radical idea that we can make our society into anything we choose. America is, after all, a radical experiment in self-government.

There is a way out of this that some conservatives proposed. Pat Buchanan, for example, argued that the Constitution was the result of British people living in the New World for two centuries. The final organizing document by the Framers was simply the only option possible for the American people. Defending the Constitution is a defense of the people and history behind it, not whatever abstract political theories some people claim as the inspiration for the Constitution.

That may be true, but it runs into that same old problem. The people who created that world and the political order that sprang from it are long gone, along with their sense of history and identity. That America was not just European. It was almost exclusively British and Protestant. America will soon be majority-minority and the founding stock is down to ten percent of the population. Defending something that no longer exists is no more possible than defending a moving target.

All of this brings us to why there will not be a “new right” that emerges from the wreckage of professional conservatism. There never was a right in America, at least not since the North conquered the South. Once the last bits of hierarchy were washed from the continent in the blood of the Confederacy, conservatism ceased to be a thing that could take root in the New World. America is and continues to be a radical experiment, a perpetual revolution seeking to reach the end of history.

This is not all bad news. Conservatism in America has always been a reaction to the peculiar ideology of progressivism which emerged in the 19th century. Conservatism sought to create an alternative ideology as an antidote to progressivism. The failure of conservatism may lead to a greater understanding that the antidote to ideology is not ideology but the anathematization of ideology. In its place there may grow a chemotherapy to the cancer of ideology.

This could be helped by the fact that we seem to be reaching the end of the ideological age, as what we call liberal democracy, but is the mature version of American progressivism, reaches its end. The last ideological states are all in a crisis, which has put the ideology in crisis. Just as failure anathematized the other great ideologies, the failure of Western liberalism may do the same for progressivism, perhaps opening the way to an organic organizing ethos.

Illiberal Multiracialism

Posted on March 27, 2024 by thezman

This post on Twitter from Vivek Ramaswamy got a lot of attention and not the good kind of attention he has been expert at attracting. Instead, the replies were full of baffled people wondering how he could say such stupid things. To many people, it looked like the sort of race-swapping that is common with Hollywood. Instead of black Vikings he was saying there were black roman emperors. He then went on to claim that these truths were somehow erased from history.

As many pointed out, there were no black emperors and Philip the Arab looked like a typical Roman at the time, as in European, because North Africa was settled by people from the other side of the Mediterranean. The “browning” of North Africa happened long after the Romans were gone. The best part of that thread is he was buried by comments correcting him for his nonsense statements. Maybe white people have reached a point where they will not tolerate this stuff.

The post, however, highlights the impossibility of a multiracial society that operates along liberal democratic lines. Liberal democracy assumes a natural equality among people in that we are born with natural entitlements. Therefore, we get equal rights and privileges in a liberal society. That is fine for an ad hoc arrangement. Pirate ships were egalitarian in their operations, for example, but the pirate ship was never intended to be a permanent arrangement among the diverse men.

Human societies assume permanence and that means they require a story for how the society came together. The Romans, for example, had the legend of Romulus and Remus who founded the city of Rome. The Rape of the Sabine Women is another important part of the story of the Roman people. The origin myths of a people are specific to a people; thus, their history is specific to them. In other words, a people’s identity is exclusive to them.

This is why a multiracial egalitarian society is impossible. You have different people with different identities rooted in different origin stories. Any effort to write the origin of one people into the story of the other people will be viewed as theft. Vivek Ramaswamy in that tweet was trying to steal a part of European history on order to insert his people into your story. No doubt he saw the resistance to this as a slight against him and people like him. This is now part of his people’s story.

You see this with the old race divide in America. Black people have an origin story that depends on white people being the villain. White people have an origin story that does not include black people. Inserting blacks into the white story requires whites to accept guilt for things they did not do and shame for ancestors who made it possible for any of us to have this discussion. It simply cannot work, so any effort to make it work aggravates the natural racial friction in America.

This does not mean a multiracial society is unworkable. The Russian Federation is a multiracial society that generally works. For a thousand years the dominant Russians have ruled lands with significant minority groups, almost all on the fringes of their territory, while avoiding many of the problems we see in the West. The most difficult period was in the early years of communism when the egalitarian impulse tried to eradicate the natural differences between people.

What you see in modern Russia is peaceful separation. The fringe areas populated by various non-Russian ethnicities are left to have their own culture and traditions, as long as they respect their place in Russian society. These ethnic groups have an identity that is tangled up in their relationship with Russians, but also separate and distinct from that of the typical Russian. The modern Russian state encourages intolerance of ethnic agitation among the Russians and the Russian minorities.

Much of the rhetoric you will hear from Russian officials about their ethnic minorities will sound like the nonsense we get from Western rulers, but it has a different purpose, and it is received by different ears. Russian multiculturalism assumes a dominant Russian culture that includes a tolerance of minority cultures, as long as they never create trouble for the majority. In other words, the Russians take some pride in not having wiped out these minorities from their lands.

Applying this civilizational model to the West would mean a European identity that assumes a natural dominance over European lands and the people in those lands, regardless of their minority identity. This sort of cultural chauvinism would allow blacks in America, for example, to hang onto their story of victimhood only so far as it gives them pride in who they are now. Antiwhite animosity would be suppressed officially and unofficially through general intolerance.

Of course, this means applying different standards to different people and that is where things run afoul of the liberal project. In order to maintain peaceful separation, it requires different standards of conduct and mutual exclusivity in large parts of the origin story of the different racial identities. The story of black people would include whites, but not in a negative way, but also exclude whites. The same would hold for the story of the white population with regards to blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and others.

There are obvious problems with the concept, not the least of which is the narcotic of egalitarianism that flows through the veins of every European. Before the West can appropriate a civilizational model to managing their now multiracial societies, they must first break their addiction to egalitarianism and natural rights. That will most likely only come through a struggle to avoid extinction. Even so, civilizationalism may be the only path forward for the West if it chooses to survive.

The Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Category Archives: Culture